2009-2014 Cadillac CTS-V Performance Mods Discussion, An AWD "V"? in Cadillac CTS-V Series Forum - 2009-2014; Originally Posted by gothicaleigh
Yeah, I see somehow I typed those out backwards... dyslexia?
Lateral traction loss is also shared ...

Re: An AWD "V"?

Originally Posted by gothicaleigh

Yeah, I see somehow I typed those out backwards... dyslexia?

Lateral traction loss is also shared at both ends.

Most pertinant part in bold. The 80's were a shitty time to be an american car. The most successful production based racecar of that time (and still holding the title) was the RWD e30 M3. But races between different cars mean nothing to this argument because there are many many other variables at play. On equally equipped cars, the RWD version will outperform the AWD one.

You just don't get it. 1980+ Trans Am cars were not production based cars. Frame and suspension wise anything went. They were purpose built race cars with silhouette bodies. They were no more production based cars than current NASCAR entries are production based. The production based Trans-Am machines had disappeared in the late '70s. Audi knew they had the field covered with the advantages of AWD so they decided to use steel bodied cars even though they could have used tube frames and RWD if they had wanted to. It's interesting to note that in current SCCA racing where AWD is allowed there is such a severe weight rule penalty that for all practical purposes it's prohibited anyway. In the smaller classes it's 400 lbs. and goes up from there. Even if you won't admit the superiority of AWD, SCCA knows all about it and has slanted the rules to make it impractical.

Re: An AWD "V"?

Still haven't found that example I asked for, eh?

I'll narrow down the search:
It's not your STS.
It's not the CTS.
It's not the BMW 3-series.
It's not the BMW 5-series.
It's not the Dodge Magnum.
It's not the Dodge Charger.
It's not Mercedes' C-class.
It's not Mercedes' E-class.
etc. etc. ad infinitum

Re: An AWD "V"?

Originally Posted by gothicaleigh

Still haven't found that example I asked for, eh?

I'll narrow down the search:
It's not your STS.
It's not the CTS.
It's not the BMW 3-series.
It's not the BMW 5-series.
It's not the Dodge Magnum.
It's not the Dodge Charger.
It's not Mercedes' C-class.
It's not Mercedes' E-class.
etc. etc. ad infinitum

It's an acedemic exercise because AWD has been legislated out by the sanctioning bodies as a result of the drubbing Audi gave with a production car to purpose built race cars. It's just like the turbine cars at Indy and Jim Halls ground effects cars and movable wing. Somebody comes along and blows away the competition with a better mousetrap so they do with the rulebook what they can't do at the track. By the way did you ever see a Group B rally car that wasn't AWD?

Re: An AWD "V"?

How did Michelle Mouton win the Pikes Peak run-what-you-brung class with an AWD Audi when all the competiton including the Unser brothers were using the "much superior" RWD cars. The opposition included 600-800HP Sprint and Champ cars driven by some of the best road racers in the world and she ate their lunch.

Re: An AWD "V"?

You're still comparing different cars to one another.

Let me put this as simply as possible:
The RWD version of your car will outperform the AWD one that you have, all other hardware being equal. The same is true with every car with RWD and AWD variants. Why do you think that is?

Re: An AWD "V"?

Originally Posted by gothicaleigh

You're still comparing different cars to one another.

Let me put this as simply as possible:
The RWD version of your car will outperform the AWD one that you have, all other hardware being equal. The same is true with every car with RWD and AWD variants. Why do you think that is?

That performance disadvantage is why there should not be an AWD V.

The Audi Quattro AWD outperformed any other version of any other car made anywhere up Pikes Peak eight years in a row. Why would that be? Audi makes 2WD cars. Why not use them instead because it would be a hell of a lot cheaper?

Re: An AWD "V"?

I think you should have bought an Audi.

You're still avoiding my question though. Yes, Audi has a very respectable racing history. Their cars were above and beyond their competition at the time. None of that addresses why AWD would be a better option for the V or how it would be an advantage to performance in any way.

Re: An AWD "V"?

Seems everyone missed the key point on Page 1 - If they build an AWD V, I will BUY one. Could give a rats ass that it weighs more or whatever other downside someone can come up with. It's called building a product that generates cash flow and profit for GM.

First one to hook a WOT launch wins. My Sierra Denali being AWD would embarass many CTS-V owners to 60 mph.

Re: An AWD "V"?

Originally Posted by gothicaleigh

I think you should have bought an Audi.

You're still avoiding my question though. Yes, Audi has a very respectable racing history. Their cars were above and beyond their competition at the time. None of that addresses why AWD would be a better option for the V or how it would be an advantage to performance in any way.

AWD gets the power to the ground in a way that no RWD car can. The problem is that the weight penalty exacted by the race organizers because of this advantage precludes the use of AWD. Who knows? Cadillac might try it anyway. You have to admit that the technique required to get the most from an AWD car results in a spectacular show. AWD cars use an entirely different racing line through the corners than RWD because they don't have to sacrifice so much in the entrance and middle of the corner in order to get the drive off the exit. When Audi was racing in Trans Am one of the complaints of the RWD car drivers was that there was no way they could guard the racing line going into the corners to prevent the AWD cars from getting the jump on the exit. If it was raining it was a one man show by Hans Stuck because he is the absolute master of the wet track. I for one would like to see Cadillac go racing with AWD just to watch the jaws drop and hear the other makers howl in complaint. All the arguments you are making about handling and clumsiness were made far and wide when Audi showed up in Trans Am and IMSA. Audi proved they were all unfounded when they blew the competition away. In IMSA competition in particular, Audi could have built RWD cars to compete but they knew they had the answer with AWD and it would take years for the others to get up to speed. If Cadillac decides to go racing with AWD there'll be some eyes opened pretty wide.

Re: An AWD "V"?

Originally Posted by StealthV

Seems everyone missed the key point on Page 1 - If they build an AWD V, I will BUY one. Could give a rats ass that it weighs more or whatever other downside someone can come up with. It's called building a product that generates cash flow and profit for GM.

First one to hook a WOT launch wins. My Sierra Denali being AWD would embarass many CTS-V owners to 60 mph.

Re: An AWD "V"?

I don't see how anybody could watch the Audi videos without jumping up and down in their seat in anticipation of an AWD V. There is no way that a thinking person can deny the advantages of AWD in a road racing machine. Audi proved it twenty years ago and it holds true today. I understand the young folks being skeptical because they weren't around to see the Audi's but I remember that era very well. Everybody that had to compete against them is still trying to forget it. People touting the advantages of RWD are going to be sitting with egg on their faces watching the AWDs disappear ahead of them and it's going to be great rubbing it in.

Re: An AWD "V"?

-More drivetrain loss = less power to the ground.
-More unsprung weight = negative effect on all areas of performance.
-More overall weight.
-Added understeer and loss of lateral traction.
-RWD provides a more balanced weight distribution.
-RWD provides a more centered feeling and allows you to steer with the throttle.

Re: An AWD "V"?

Originally Posted by gothicaleigh

That performance disadvantage is why there should not be an AWD V.

But isn't there other models of performance vehicles built that offer different build variations in which one version technically outperforms another ? Some consumers may be willing to sacrifice ultimate platform performance in order to gain certain options they would prefer.